Balance

Atrios points out the inane tendency of journalists to find and publish opposing viewpoints to every commentator or source. He specifically cites Howard Kurtz's comments on the Cindy Sheehan, that "you also need journalists who are going to give that kind of attention to somebody from the other side."

I think back to journalism class. Yes, I remember - when reporting on contentious issues, it's always good form to report not just the viewpoint of the first person who talks to you, but also that of someone representative of the other side. And, of course, there may be multiple sides - but I digress. Anyway, makes some sense in the case of debate.

But this Sheehan story isn't a debate story, not really. She's getting attention because of what she's doing, mostly, much like reporters covering a burning building or the circus coming to town. There are particulars about her reasons for being out there in Crawford that make her story more newsworthy, yes, but thousands more share her feelings and yet are not given even a minute on CNN. No, she's in the news primarily for what she's done. Finding somebody from the other side? That's like reporting on a random building that happens not to have caught on fire today, or a bunch of guys in town who are not riding elephants or eating fire.

Not every story need opposition. Sure, publishing statements from Sheehan merits asking those in the administration for their response, should they give it. But many reporters don't seem comfortable in stopping there. They want to fill their quota for reporting some other, disagreeing person. But sometimes, as any kid who's played opposite day or handled a mobius strip may know, there isn't an antonym, there isn't another side.